Petraeus Scandal - I do get it

The medal thing had a good run, didn't it? OK, now it's time for me to set the record straight.

1) At Gen. Petraeus' level, displaying decorations is not optional; it's a duty. If someone honors you with a decoration, you honor them back by wearing it. It's not about bragging; it's about acknowledging that you were there.

2) Gen. Petraeus is an officer and gentleman.

Among his many accomplishments:

► Defended the Constitution
► Defended his country
► Protected our soldiers (inc. my kid)
► Worked to help the Afghan and Iraqi people
► Worked hard to minimize civilian casualties
► Tried to use resources wisely
► Showed courage in battle
► Contributed to military science
► Respected the chain of command

Finally, in addition to the many other sacrifices he's made for his country, General Petraeus has had the unenviable task of fixing mistakes made by civilians who didn't know what the hell they were doing. 'Nuff said.

And he did his duty at the CIA. He and the CIA clearly sent their analysis that it WAS a terrorost attack. It was an Al Quaida affilitate... and then.. the words were purged from the White House talking points. Didn't fit with the Obama narrative, "GM is alive, Bin Laden is dead and we have decimated their leadership".... then they looked for a bimbo, handed her a script and sent her on a talking points tour... explicitly redacting the CIA and Department of State Security analysis. Obama hiding behind skirts... and then the bluster. The White House made this dirty and it is a cover up. A good president knows when CIC, President, needs to trump political expediency. This one doesn't. Off to see Jay Zee and Vegas!!! He burned Susan Rice..and Hilary Clinton.. both.

Kootchman, your characterization of Ambassador Rice as a bimbo is unbelievably offensive. If you can't make intelligent points without ad hominem attacks, you've already lost the argument.
Knock it off.

"Ex-CIA Director David Petraeus told lawmakers Friday that classified intelligence showed the deadly raid on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration withheld the suspected role of specific al-Qaida affiliates to avoid tipping off the terrorist groups.

The recently resigned spy chief explained that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation of what caused the attack so as not to tip off the groups that the U.S. intelligence community was on their trail, according to lawmakers who attended the private briefings.

The names of terrorists believed to be involved were removed for reasons of national security, and all of the relevant intelligence agencies signed off on the edited text. As Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) explained to the AP, "[I]n an unclassified document you want to be careful who you identify as being involved."

Susan Rice then relied on the intelligence community's findings to update the public five days after the attack, and everything she said reflected the best information available at the time.

what I'm thinking is, if they find nothing untoward here, they will look into ( and make some up) the next thing to come along in order to find something to impeach Obama. It will be an unrelenting search. It's sour grapes.

JV and Kootch, you don't know the truth anymore than I do. So...shut up about it. Or maybe you figure that if you repeat it enough, everyone will believe it, even if it's lies.

Susan Rice is not a bimbo..she's pretty damned smart..and her speech? signed off by the CIA..her talking points in her speech were approved. Again, get over yourselves. Do you two really hate Obama that much? Are you really afraid of him that much?

I know it's, like, a whole month ago or so, but do you happen to remember who was out front on the whole Bengazi thing, making statements and sowing disinformation before the administration had even made a single statement? Strain your brain a little and recall.

I'm not a spokesman for the Obama administration and have no access to classified information, but, using just a little common sense, I think I can explain the whole thing. Something bad happened rather suddenly. People were killed. The place they were at is called a consulate, but there is evidence that it was actually a CIA outpost. Nobody wants to admit that. But the local terrorist guys knew it and wanted to lay a smackdown on it. The government now wishes to conduct some investigations and find out how this occurred and who, if anyone, might be held responsible. There is still a war going on, you know, and sometimes you can't predict when and where attacks may come from. Meanwhile, right wing cranks are looking for anything they can throw against the wall to see if it might stick to Obama and help Repubs win the election. October surprise and all. Enter Mitt and his wrecking crew.

Here's an idea. STFU, quit politicizing a tragedy, let the appropriate agencies conduct their investigations, and see where it leads.

"Job, I don't think she is a bimbo, Kim Kardashian is a bimbo. Susan Rice willfully lied to the American public repeatedly. That's far worse than a bimbo."

No. what i know is that talking heads have been saying that she willfully lied to the American people.

Neither of us knows if that is true or not.

If it is true, and i am not saying in any way that it is, i can tell you with certainty that she will not be the first American diplomat to lie to the American people.

No sir..
you can follow that trait all the way to the White House.
and those watchdogs of honor, the media
endlessly repeated those lies
even after they were proven to be lies.

I don't watch mainstream media news at all any more.
There is a reason for that.
I remember when the most entertaining portion of a news broadcast was the weather girl...
now it's all talking heads and reality tv entertainment

Good try dobro, but the head of the interim Libyan government called it the next AND mentioned the Al Quida affiliate 8 hours after the attack!

She is a bimbo... first as two former UN Ambassadors have now stated, she is on the CIA distribution list for analysis. She knew damn well what she was trotted out to say was vetted and changed to fit a political agenda. Surprised? No not really.

Yea JoB we've all seen this shit before... Obama politicized it. He was receiving those live feeds, the request for aid and assistance, and it didn't fit his agenda. God forbid after toppling Khadafi.. do we now have ANOTHER open front? Probably. Your Prez was on a jet less than 8 hours later to raise money and get his Jay Zee dose. That sure politicized it. It was time to wear his CIC hat... he didn't. Aren't you the least angry that your administration is spinning so much yarn? Ahhh ... I know, he won. I remember Watergate... cover ups never work.

wow, Kootch...bitter much? Your side lost but you're bound and determined to have the last word, aren't you. How dare anyone prove that Kman is wrong...esp. the likes of us ignorant libs out here. How dare we doubt you. You're full of talking points gotten from some right wing link, some right wing news. And you're offensive as hell, and still want us to revere what you say as gospel? What planet are you from, anyway?

Your disrespect for women in general is showing, dear man. Your disdain for anyone's opinion than your own is showing, for sure.

People disagree with your opinion, and you condescend, you denigrate...how dare we disagree with you! What idiots we must be ! No matter what the facts say it's still a conspiracy to you, Obama is lying to us all....you are amazing !

Petraeus' word used to be the gold standard among the cranky right wing set but I guess he's worked for Obama too long...now he's a liar, too.

Watch this...Evil Obama was sitting in his chamber, watching the live feeds of his forces world-wide when the attack occurred. He realized immediately this could be political trouble so instead of calling for more security, he called his UN rep and told her to get her lies ready. But then he realized, "what about Petraeus?! That Boy Scout will never tell a lie for me." Ah, but I've had my evil minions working on him. It's time to drop the sex scandal on him. Then he'll do whatever we say. Double agent Broadbent has done a stellar job setting him up....yadayadayada

See how easy it is to make that cr*p up? And I don't even watch Fox news!

Wow, another clearly left wing liar is on the record on this issue. Here's left wing apologist and liar Rep. Peter King (R-NY)

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has admitted that the CIA and intelligence community approved U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice’s talking points before she made her much-derided Sept. 16 appearance on several Sunday news shows to discuss the attacks in Benghazi. King, one of the most outspoken critics of the Obama administration’s response to the attack, came to his conclusion following testimony from former CIA Director David Petraeus.

How long do you think it will be before some right wing crank starts calling him General Betrayus?

And listen to this guy. He's a Democrat, so he's gotta be a liar.
A Democratic member of the House, Adam Schiff, said: "The general was adamant there was no politicisation of the process, no White House interference or political agenda. He completely debunked that idea."

According to multiple intelligence sources who have served in Benghazi, there were more than just Libyan militia members who were held and interrogated by CIA contractors at the CIA annex in the days prior to the attack. Other prisoners from additional countries in Africa and the Middle East were brought to this location.

The Libya annex was the largest CIA station in North Africa, and two weeks prior to the attack, the CIA was preparing to shut it down. Most prisoners, according to British and American intelligence sources, had been moved two weeks earlier.

The CIA, though, categorically denied these allegations, saying: “The CIA has not had detention authority since January 2009, when Executive Order 13491 was issued. Any suggestion that the agency is still in the detention business is uninformed and baseless.”

McCain is asking for an investigation into the Benghazi attack to score political points against Obama, but for the sake of truth and justice, there should be an investigation into whether the CIA ignored Executive Order 13491 by running a secret prison in the Benghazi annex.

So it does seem like an investigation is in order, but not for the reasons the cranky right wingers are pushing.

Yes I did...and still think she is one. Well let's have it then dobro.. special commission, open to the press, public hearings.. the whole show. I'd love to see it. Obama, Hilary, all trotted out the "video" line... weeks after they knew it wasn't true. Even trotted the turkey out in front of the UN?!! He knew it was bs then. Spin, spin, ..

Sure Kootch, after they do a special commission on George Tenet's actions, and redactions to classified intel on the lack of WMD's, from his own CIA field reports.
Let alone his promise the intel given to Powell for the UN was accurate. We know how that relationship ended.
I'm still waiting for that investigation, and I'm sure the relatives of 8,000 plus victims are too.

"Well let's have it then dobro.. special commission, open to the press, public hearings..."

Not necessary. We have committees in Congress already that are charged with investigation and military and executive agencies. We don't need McBitter McCain running his own show trial. Wisely, Harry Reid agrees with me. Google up his letter on McCain's request for a select committee with him as chairman. It's pretty funny.

I know all the righties are pretty sad right now, being major losers and all,and all they have left is throwing feces at the wall trying to make something stick to Obama, but I think he must've found the secret recipie for Presidential Teflon that Saint Ronnie left hidden somewhere in the Oval Office.

Even Crusty McCain's BFFs aren't sticking with him on the "John McCain Select Committee" BS

"Today on Fox News Sunday, Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) said they did not think the U.S. Senate should create a special committee to investigate the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11. Chambliss and Lieberman said the Senate currently has the capacity to investigate the matter and that a new committee is not needed.

Republican senators John McCain (AZ), Lindsey Graham (SC) and Kelly Ayotte (NH) this week called for a Watergate-style special “select committee” to investigate the attack, claiming that the Obama administration, particularly U.N. Ambasssador Rice, misled the public about the attack resulting from protests against an anti-Islam video.

But Chambliss and Lieberman, both close friends of McCain and Graham (Lieberman, Graham and McCain are often referred to as “The Three Amigos“), rejected the proposal. “I respectfully separate from my two amigos on this one,” Lieberman said"

From what has come out from all of this is there was an affair (oh joy men cheating nothing new) this McCain/Graham witch hunt now has a new comer welcome Machele Bachmann now we are getting her 2 cents worth in.....

...Look the CIA has been wrong before and they will be wrong again its called the spy game and as long as we have embassies located through out the world its going to happen again not a matter of if but when...

Not true. She read the info she was given by the CIA that was current at the time. David Petraeus testified as much.Why don't you believe him?

"Can one of you tell me why the reinforcements they asked for did not show up?"

No. Neither can you. That's why we have investigations. Investigations take longer than overnight. Why was Mitt Romney politicizing the event before the administration had even made a statement?

"Congress is doing its job in investigating. Whether or not they find the truth is irrelevant. It is all about politics."

What kind of silly statement is that? Finding the truth is irrelevant? Then why do you even want an investigation? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that's a misstatement unless you care to elaborate.

"The CIA's collective judgment on Saturday the 15th, when Rice taped her interviews, was that the protests earlier in the week in Cairo — which had been inspired by the video — had also inspired protests in Benghazi. Later, extremist elements hijacked those protests to storm the consulate. The CIA subsequently backed off its belief that there had been protests in Benghazi, but that only happened later. On Saturday, the CIA told Rice there had been protests, and that's what she said on TV.

The evidence to this day suggests that, in fact, the YouTube video did play a role in the attacks. It's simply not true that Rice invented or exaggerated about that.

Rice was, in fact, properly cautious in her TV appearances. The transcripts here are crystal clear. On Face the Nation, for example, she carefully told Bob Schieffer that she couldn't yet offer any "definitive conclusions," but that "based on the best information we have to date" it appeared that there had been a spontaneous protest in Benghazi "as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where [...] there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video." She then immediately added: "But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent." When Schieffer pressed her on whether the attack had been preplanned, or whether al-Qaeda was involved, she said directly that we simply didn't know yet."

Since you seem to want to speak for me I will reciprocate since your attitude of the admin colors your view IMO, but you may find the last few sentences in the article interesting. In fact I think those last few sentences make my point. Like I said, It is all about politics.

If they get to the truth I shall be happy but what I see in every aspect is a "Narrative" that is being used by the Admin and the people attacking that. Either way, the politicians involved can say "Look at me, I care, We are investigating and we are people of action because you elected us. Can I have a donation for my re-election (whether we find out the truth or not). Call me cynical.

To the meat of the matter. Susan Rice stated that under the Obama Presidency, Obama’s leadership had “decimated al Qaeda.” Intelligence officials and the President later said that terrorists likely affiliated with al Qaeda had been part of the attack. I also heard Hillary Clinton echo the YouTube video causing an organic attack. General Patreaus said he knew it was an organized attack.

So, she did officially speak for the administration and shall we say promoted the narrative for a positive spin for the admin. And we still do not know who denied the consulate staff extra support.

JoB, Nobody died due to Clinton's issue with the cigar and then the lying under oath bit.

Wait, some people did die. The day before the House impeachment vote, Clinton bombed Iraq, delaying the impeachment vote. He continued the bombing throughout all the days of the impeachment vote. A few hours once the bombings ceased he said "We have achieved our objectives." Of course, because the objective was to delay and distract from the impeachment vote!

To echo a point, was it good for that President to play political football?

"Well Dobro, I stand by my statement whether she did it intentionally or not and so does Diane Feinstein."

Did you read this sentence that was in the article you cited?

"Feinstein said it was not right for Rice to be “pilloried” for comments that were consistent with the approved statement she was given to speak off of."

Ms Feinstein might disagree with your characterization of her remarks.

"Since you seem to want to speak for me..."

I don't believe I ever spoke for you. I quoted you and responded to those quotes with my own thoughts. You seem to think all of this is about politics ("call me cynical") but yet you still badly want to blame someone for something. I'm still curious about what you might think about Mitt Romney politicizing the event before the administration had even made a statement?

I agree that we should find out what really happened but all this malarkey about Susan Rice is nothing but a distraction from that. She just went out and gave the information she was given. She could not have done otherwise and had nothing to do with the collection or organization of said information.

"General Patreaus said he knew it was an organized attack."

Apparently you believe the General when he says something you want to hear. Why don't you believe him when he says the info that Susan Rice had is what the CIA gave her?

Your statement about Clinton's politically motivated bombing of Iraq is a load of cr*p too but I don't feel like looking up the correct info right now. Maybe later.

Yeah maybe later. Sure, Wag the dog. You call it cr*p before you check to see if I am correct.

I do believe the general. He came clean about the affair. He has served honorably in the military and did the right thing by stepping down. His public career has been very successful. But, The head of the CIA should not be the head of the CIA if he cannot keep an affair quiet. Get my drift. But I could use the old lib adage that it was just sex and his personal life is nobodies business. He didn't lie under oath as far as I know. Sound familiar? You see, I know we humans make mistakes. I only wish they would own up to them. It is a hard lesson for everyone to learn. Some never do.

I did read the statements you spoke of, since I sent the link. In fact pointed out some partisanship elsewhere too.

She painted the wrong picture and did it five times. Whoever gave her the talking points should be found and asked why they were blaming it on a Video. She spun it. If she had been wiser, she would have only said the FBI was looking into it. She did not need to go any further.

Don't tell me it wasn't politics. It was a failure by our government to react properly. The "narrative" was BS. They were spinning it and they spun it too hard.

Now, not everything is cut and dry. Just normal human error can explain parts of the issue but there were decisions made that make this horrible incident look so suspicious.

As far as Romney goes, he was on the campaign trail and had every right to bring it up. On September 11, members of our government were murdered by well armed terrorists. The story from the admin was suspect. Romney was talking about an incident which happened during the President's term. The President had been promoting his foreign policy and Romney saw a weakness.

Let me look into my crystal ball and postulate the next right wing attack after this current load of cr*p fizzles. They'll say Obama knew about Petraeus' affair before he appointed him to the CIA, knowing that the General would have to do his bidding because of this info.They'll say Obama's "corrupt" admin is using the FBI to blackmail the intelligence community into lying for Obama. And Eric Holder is in on it too!

Look, I don't really want to argue with you on this anymore. I just want to find out what happened and employ fixes that will hopefully keep people safe. The American people are very forgiving and if they see the Pols making a good effort to change they will support it.

I agree that we should find out what happened and do something about it. My point, tho, is that Susan Rice really has nothing to do with it and the smear campaign against her is shameless and outrageous.

So back to my original suggestion. STFU, quit politicizing a tragedy, let the appropriate agencies conduct their investigations, and see where it leads.

"The story from the admin was suspect. Romney was talking about an..."

The story wasn't even out yet. Romney spoke before there were any official statements on the table.At any rate, it doesn't matter. He lost and one of the reasons he did was his out-of-touch opportunism on this issue. He showed, just as McCain did in 2008 with his phony "cancel the debate I've got to run to Washington to fix the financial meltdown", that not only did he have no expertise on foreign policy but he was a craven opportunist that would try to turn American casualties into political fodder for his campaign. Thank goodness the American people were smart enough to see it and vote accordingly.

Rich..."As far as Romney goes, he was on the campaign trail and had every right to bring it up. On September 11, members of our government were murdered by well armed terrorists. The story from the admin was suspect. Romney was talking about an incident which happened during the President's term. The President had been promoting his foreign policy and Romney saw a weakness."

Are you seriously saying that it was OK for Romney to politicize this before any formal statement was made? Four people including our ambassador were killed, and he could have deferred for a few more days. But, no, he jumped on it, to the consternation of even the ambassador's wife. How tasteless, how disrespectful would you let him be in this tragedy? It wasn't a damned conspiracy, political anything,no matter what you'd like to espouse. Again, because you can doesn't mean you should...advice to Mitt Romney !